Messages

Privacy and Terms of Service

This Privacy Policy governs the manner in which The Constituent collects, uses, maintains and discloses information collected from users (each, a "User") of the https://the-constituent.com website ("Site"). This privacy policy applies to the Site and all products and services offered by The Constituent.

Personal identification information

We may collect personal identification information from Users in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, when Users visit our site, register on the siteplace an orderfill out a formrespond to a survey and in connection with other activities, services, features or resources we make available on our Site. Users may be asked for, as appropriate, name, email address, mailing address, and/or phone number.

We will collect personal identification information from Users only if they voluntarily submit such information to us. Users can always refuse to supply personally identification information, except that it may prevent them from engaging in certain Site related activities.

Non-personal identification information

We may collect non-personal identification information about Users whenever they interact with our Site. Non-personal identification information may include the browser name, the type of computer and technical information about Users means of connection to our Site, such as the operating system and the Internet service providers utilized and other similar information.

Web browser cookies

Our Site may use "cookies" to enhance User experience. User's web browser places cookies on their hard drive for record-keeping purposes and sometimes to track information about them. User may choose to set their web browser to refuse cookies, or to alert you when cookies are being sent. If they do so, note that some parts of the Site may not function properly.

How we use collected information

The Constituent collects and uses Users personal information for the following purposes:

To improve customer service

Your information helps us to more effectively respond to your customer service requests and support needs.

To personalize user experience

We may use information in the aggregate to understand how our Users as a group use the services and resources provided on our Site.

To improve our Site

We continually strive to improve our website offerings based on the information and feedback we receive from you.

To process transactions

We may use the information Users provide about themselves when placing an order only to provide service to that order. We do not share this information with outside parties except to the extent necessary to provide the service.

To send periodic emails

The email address Users provide for order processing, will only be used to send them information and updates pertaining to their order. It may also be used to respond to their inquiries, and/or other requests or questions. If User decides to opt-in to our mailing list, they will receive emails that may include company news, updates, related product or service information, etc. If at any time the User would like to unsubscribe from receiving future emails, we include detailed unsubscribe instructions at the bottom of each email or User may contact us via our Site.

Sensitive and private data exchange between the Site and its Users happens over a SSL secured communication channel and is encrypted and protected with digital signatures. Our Site is also in compliance with PCI vulnerability standards in order to create as secure of an environment as possible for Users.

Google Adsense

Some of the ads may be served by Google. Google\'s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to Users based on their visit to our Site and other sites on the Internet. DART uses "non personally identifiable information" and does NOT track personal information about you, such as your name, email address, physical address, etc. You may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Compliance with children\'s online privacy protection act

Protecting the privacy of the very young is especially important. For that reason, we never collect or maintain information at our Site from those we actually know are under 13, and no part of our website is structured to attract anyone under 13.

Changes to this privacy policy

The Constituent has the discretion to update this privacy policy at any time. When we do, revise the updated date at the bottom of this page,send you an email. We encourage Users to frequently check this page for any changes to stay informed about how we are helping to protect the personal information we collect. You acknowledge and agree that it is your responsibility to review this privacy policy periodically and become aware of modifications.

Your acceptance of these terms

By using this Site, you signify your acceptance of this policy and terms of service. If you do not agree to this policy, please do not use our Site. Your continued use of the Site following the posting of changes to this policy will be deemed your acceptance of those changes.

Contacting us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, or your dealings with this site, please contact us at:

The Constituent https://the-constituent.com info@the-constituent.com

This document was last updated: May 26, 2015

Create an Account

Privacy and Terms of Service

This Privacy Policy governs the manner in which The Constituent collects, uses, maintains and discloses information collected from users (each, a "User") of the https://the-constituent.com website ("Site"). This privacy policy applies to the Site and all products and services offered by The Constituent.

Personal identification information

We may collect personal identification information from Users in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, when Users visit our site, register on the siteplace an orderfill out a formrespond to a survey and in connection with other activities, services, features or resources we make available on our Site. Users may be asked for, as appropriate, name, email address, mailing address, and/or phone number.

We will collect personal identification information from Users only if they voluntarily submit such information to us. Users can always refuse to supply personally identification information, except that it may prevent them from engaging in certain Site related activities.

Non-personal identification information

We may collect non-personal identification information about Users whenever they interact with our Site. Non-personal identification information may include the browser name, the type of computer and technical information about Users means of connection to our Site, such as the operating system and the Internet service providers utilized and other similar information.

Web browser cookies

Our Site may use "cookies" to enhance User experience. User's web browser places cookies on their hard drive for record-keeping purposes and sometimes to track information about them. User may choose to set their web browser to refuse cookies, or to alert you when cookies are being sent. If they do so, note that some parts of the Site may not function properly.

How we use collected information

The Constituent collects and uses Users personal information for the following purposes:

To improve customer service

Your information helps us to more effectively respond to your customer service requests and support needs.

To personalize user experience

We may use information in the aggregate to understand how our Users as a group use the services and resources provided on our Site.

To improve our Site

We continually strive to improve our website offerings based on the information and feedback we receive from you.

To process transactions

We may use the information Users provide about themselves when placing an order only to provide service to that order. We do not share this information with outside parties except to the extent necessary to provide the service.

To send periodic emails

The email address Users provide for order processing, will only be used to send them information and updates pertaining to their order. It may also be used to respond to their inquiries, and/or other requests or questions. If User decides to opt-in to our mailing list, they will receive emails that may include company news, updates, related product or service information, etc. If at any time the User would like to unsubscribe from receiving future emails, we include detailed unsubscribe instructions at the bottom of each email or User may contact us via our Site.

Sensitive and private data exchange between the Site and its Users happens over a SSL secured communication channel and is encrypted and protected with digital signatures. Our Site is also in compliance with PCI vulnerability standards in order to create as secure of an environment as possible for Users.

Google Adsense

Some of the ads may be served by Google. Google\'s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to Users based on their visit to our Site and other sites on the Internet. DART uses "non personally identifiable information" and does NOT track personal information about you, such as your name, email address, physical address, etc. You may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Compliance with children\'s online privacy protection act

Protecting the privacy of the very young is especially important. For that reason, we never collect or maintain information at our Site from those we actually know are under 13, and no part of our website is structured to attract anyone under 13.

Changes to this privacy policy

The Constituent has the discretion to update this privacy policy at any time. When we do, revise the updated date at the bottom of this page,send you an email. We encourage Users to frequently check this page for any changes to stay informed about how we are helping to protect the personal information we collect. You acknowledge and agree that it is your responsibility to review this privacy policy periodically and become aware of modifications.

Your acceptance of these terms

By using this Site, you signify your acceptance of this policy and terms of service. If you do not agree to this policy, please do not use our Site. Your continued use of the Site following the posting of changes to this policy will be deemed your acceptance of those changes.

Contacting us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, or your dealings with this site, please contact us at:

Thomas H.

Former Democrat IA

About Sen. Thomas

HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Rhode
Island and the Senator from Utah for agreeing to the way we worked this
out so we could all have our time to speak on the Senate floor. I
appreciate it very much.

Extending unemployment compensation benefits is one of the most
important things, vital things we should be doing right now in
Congress, both for the people who are unemployed but also for our
economy. Our economy is improving--slowly. There are still 20 million
Americans either out of work or marginally employed who want to work.
Almost 4 million of those have been out of work for over 6 months. So,
faced with this, it is reprehensible that Congress failed to extend
Federal unemployment benefits at the end of last year, 3 days after
Christmas.

To correct this failure, last week the Senate began considering a
bill that was intended to extend those benefits, and I wholeheartedly
support this effort. As our economy makes steady improvements on the
long road of recovery from the great recession, we continue to support
our fellow Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own.
The way to do that is to restore Federal unemployment insurance
programs for the long-term unemployed. But to garner the votes needed
to pass the unemployment insurance extension, my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle insisted we find a way to pay for it, through
cuts to existing programs, cuts that one columnist for the Los Angeles
Times said were Swiftian in their absurdity and cruelty.

I refer to the January 10 issue of the Los Angeles Times by Michael
Hiltzik. It is titled ``An awful idea: hammer the disabled to pay for
unemployment benefits.''
The first paragraph says:
It would take the pen of Jonathan Swift to fully describe
Congress's willingness to beat up on the least fortunate
members of society to protect the richest. The latest example
is a plan to pay for a one-year extension of unemployment
insurance by cutting Social Security benefits for the
disabled.

First of all, I wish to say I do not believe that an extension of
Federal unemployment insurance benefits needs to be offset. We have
done it before. We did it under the Bush administration and we have
done it before and it has always been an emergency. It is just as if a
hurricane hits or terrible storm; this is a terrible storm for people
who are unemployed for long periods of time. Frankly, the recent budget
deal we just passed reduced the deficit by $25 billion. I disagree with
having to find extra money. But the other side--the Republicans--says
we have to find offsets. I guess I am reluctantly willing to do so.

However, the proposal before us would do so in one of the most
pernicious ways possible. I guess the most positive comment I can make
about it is it is comparatively less damaging than some of the
amendments that have been filed by some of my Republican colleagues.
But understand this. The proposal before us to extend unemployment
benefits and to ``pay for it,'' what it would do is it would deny
individuals who have a disability and who are receiving Social Security
disability insurance--it would say that if someone gets unemployment
compensation, their disability payments will be reduced, dollar for
dollar, for every dollar they get in unemployment compensation. That is
bad enough. I will get into that in a second. Amendments filed on the
Republican side would go further, and they would say if someone gets $1
in unemployment compensation payments, they would lose all their
disability rights, all their disability payments, and all their
Medicare support that comes along with being approved for SSDI--Social
Security disability insurance.

The proponents of these policies say that people with disabilities
who receive disability insurance payments and unemployment compensation
payments are double dipping. They claim this is a loophole; that
somehow people who receive both are scamming the system. This is not
true. This is simply not true. SSDI, Social Security disability
insurance, is designed to address the needs of people with
disabilities. Unemployment insurance is designed as a partial,
temporary replacement of income for people who lost jobs through no
fault of their own. They are two separate programs with two separate
designed benefits. It is possible for an individual to be eligible for
both.

How can this be? First of all, we have to disabuse ourselves of what
we keep hearing on the Senate floor from my friends on the Republican
side. They keep talking about disability insurance as though, if
someone gets Social Security disability insurance, then they are unable
to work. That is not true. That is simply not true. SSDI is set up as
system to give some support while looking for work--or get a job and
supplement that.

Under the law, people who qualify for SSDI, Social Security
disability--I will just say disability. People who qualify for
disability insurance can work and are encouraged to work, and they can
make up to $1,070 a month without losing their SSDI. Why is it? Because
we
[[Page S286]]
want people to work to the best of their ability--especially when they
have a disability. People with disabilities also want to work.

Keep in mind the SSDI Program is not a freeloader program. When you
work and get a paycheck, they take out FICA taxes, which is the Federal
Insurance Contribution Act. There are three parts of it. You pay to an
insurance program for Social Security, old age, and survivors. It is
indemnity insurance so when you get old, you get a check. Most people
think of it as Social Security. The second part is hospital insurance,
or Medicare. The third part is disability insurance. If you don't work
and you haven't paid your FICA taxes, you don't get SSDI.

Listen to this. An adult becomes eligible for disability insurance
compensation when they have worked at least 10 years. You have to work
at least 10 years and at least 5 years prior to getting Social Security
disability, and you have to have earned at least $4,800 a year. You
have to earn at least $400 a month for 5 years before you even qualify.

So this idea that I keep hearing about, oh, someone works for 4
weeks, and then they go out and file for disability and are on
disability for the rest of their lives is nonsense. That is not true.
Yet we keep hearing these stories going around and around. You will
have worked at least 10 years and will have had earnings during at
least 5 of the previous 10 years prior to receiving it, and you have to
have made at least $4,800 a year before you qualify.

Then let's say you do become disabled and file for disability. What
is your chance of getting it? One out of three. For every three persons
who file for Social Security disability insurance compensation, only
one out of three actually gets it. Why is that? You have to go through
a long evidentiary process--a medical evidentiary process--and the
administrative law judge is going to send you back to get further
opinions. So it is not something you just file and you get it. Only one
out of three qualifies for it.

That is why if a person works and pays taxes--your FICA taxes--and is
then laid off, they can get unemployment. But if they also qualify for
disability insurance, they should get that if they paid into the
system. People with disabilities who work and pay into that system can
also be eligible for unemployment compensation. Why shouldn't they get
that?
Listen to this. If we deny people with disabilities their right to
the insurance they have paid for, we are discriminating against a group
of people in a way that no other group is singled out. In other words,
we are discriminating against you just because you are disabled. How do
you like that? Is that what we are about? We are going to discriminate
against you just because you are disabled. Because if you are not
disabled, you won't be discriminated against. If you are not disabled,
you will get your unemployment compensation. You might even be eligible
for some other government programs, such as section 8 housing or
something like that. We don't take that away.

God forbid you become disabled and you are working--you are disabled,
you get a disability check, and you go to work. You can work and make
up to $1,070 a month. You are providing a little bit of extra income so
you can live independently and maybe provide a few things for yourself.
But you, and only you--if you get unemployment compensation, we are
going to take away your disability payments. Only you. Nobody else.
Nobody else is denied their full unemployment compensation. Under the
bill we have, only people with disabilities will be affected.

Let me provide a real-life example of what this means to a real
person. I will call him Henry. This is a real person. Henry lives in
the District of Columbia. Henry has a disability. He is deaf, and he
has other health problems on top of being deaf. But Henry worked. He
worked for 10 years. He worked and paid his taxes, but then in his
thirties, because of other health reasons, he couldn't continue to work
full time so he went on disability and qualified for it. So now he is
making $740 a month on his disability insurance--$740 a month. Well, he
can earn up to $1,070 a month, as I said, under the law and still get
that. He can't work full time, but he likes to work. He wants to work.
He wants to be a productive citizen, so he went out and got a part-time
job consistent with his disabilities. He makes $950 a month.

If you add $950 and $740, you get $1,690 a month. Big deal. But I can
tell you what that $1,690 does for him. It allows him to live
independently. It allows him to provide some payments for a support
system. It allows him to sign up for cable TV. It allows him to go see
a movie once in a while and maybe even go out and have a hamburger--
$1,690 a month. That is what Henry was doing.

Henry became unemployed. But now mind you, every month he worked and
made $950 a month, he paid his FICA taxes every month. Now he is
unemployed. Well, what happens? He went on unemployment compensation
and he gets $520 a month. He gets $740 for disability, $520 for
unemployment, which adds up to $1,260 a month. It is a little over $400
and some less than what he was getting when he worked full time. Still,
$1,260 a month allows him to live independently. It allows him to
support himself.

Under the amendment that is in this bill, here is what happens: He
gets his $520 in unemployment, but his disability is reduced to $220 a
month. Now Henry is getting $740 a month. What is he going to do? He
won't be able to afford his apartment, let alone have cable TV. I don't
know if Henry has cable TV. But $740 a month?
No other person working in America and paying their FICA taxes is
treated like that--no one. And they still aren't unless this amendment
is adopted, and then we will discriminate against you simply because
you are disabled. I mean, you wonder what people are thinking about.

Yes, I have compassion for those who are unemployed. I would like to
see our economy improve. We have to extend unemployment benefits but
not at the expense of people who are on the lowest rung of our ladder--
people with disabilities, who have paid into the system, and who have
become unemployed. Henry wants to work. He wants to work. He wants to
make that $950 a month. Pernicious? Pernicious? That is just a fancy
way of saying it is abominable that we would even consider it.

Henry is not double dipping. He is not scamming the system. He is not
a slacker. He is not defrauding anybody. He is only getting what is
rightfully his because he paid into the program. If people with
disabilities are earning income, as Henry was, and paying into the
disability insurance program, they should be eligible for that just as
any other citizen who paid into that program. Again, to do otherwise
would be to discriminate against someone just because they are
disabled.

One of my proudest moments in my history here in the Senate--indeed,
in the entire Congress--is when I stood on this floor as a chief
sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. When we passed
that and President Bush signed it into law, the cheers went up. It was
passed 25 years after the passage of the great Civil Rights Act of
1965. That was sort of the emancipation proclamation for people with
disabilities. Because of that law, we have encouraged people with
disabilities to work. They want to work. Now we want to break down the
barriers, provide for accommodations and transportation and ramps and
widen doors and all the other factors that make it possible for people
with disabilities to get a job and go to work. It changed the system.

I can remember when we had the hearings. We had people come in and
testify. Employers said they would hire people with disabilities, but
sometimes they don't show up for work and this and that. Well, I looked
into it, and I found out they couldn't get on the bus because the bus
wasn't accessible. How are they going to get to work? They couldn't
drive because they were in a wheelchair and they couldn't get on the
bus. So we changed it. We made the buses and the metro accessible.
Everything is accessible now. People with disabilities are working, and
they want them to work.

Now we are saying to them, you can work. Like Henry, you can work,
and you should. If you qualify for disability insurance, you can get
your disability insurance and make up to $1,070 a month because we
would like you to work if you want to work. But if you are like Henry
and pay into the system and become unemployed, you will go
[[Page S287]]
from $1,690 to $740 a month simply because we are discriminating
against you. What kind of signal does that send?
That is why this provision is opposed by members of the entire
disability community, Arc, the National Disability Rights Network, the
National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives,
American Association of People with Disabilities, and on and on and on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter expressing
opposition to this proposal from these groups be printed in the Record
at the end of my remarks.

I also ask unanimous consent that this article from in the L.A. Times
be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

As I pointed out, you hammer the disabled to pay for unemployment
benefits? You sometimes wonder.

I want to be clear about one thing: I don't ascribe bad motives to
anybody in this body--not in the least. As a matter of fact, I am told
there will be a motion to strike this provision when we vote on the
cloture on this tomorrow, and that is good. I hope it is generally
supported by everyone here. So I don't ascribe bad motives, but what
happens sometimes is we don't think these things through. Someone
starts this thing, and they say these people are double dipping and
scamming the system, and all of a sudden it sounds--oh, my gosh, yes.

But when you look into it and examine it, and you see these people
have been paying their FICA taxes--they have been paying their taxes.
But you say because you are disabled, you don't get it if you become
unemployed.

We are busy around here, and we look at different things, so there
are no bad motives. I take the floor to set the record straight and to
let everyone know just what is at stake. Do we really, truly want to
discriminate against 117,000 Americans? That is what the General
Accounting Office said in a study done a couple of years ago--that
there were about 117,000 Americans at any one time who are getting
disability insurance as well as unemployment.

If Henry's health improved, and he was able to get a full-time job,
he wouldn't get his disability. He would go back and start earning
money full-time. So are we saying that somehow we are going to take
away their incentive to work? No, I don't think so. I think it is just
one of those things that comes up and people say they are double
dipping and they are scamming the system. But, no, that is not what is
happening at all. They pay into the system. It is insurance. They pay
for it. They ought to receive it, and they shouldn't have their
disability payments reduced because they are getting unemployment. They
are two separate programs.

So I hope two things happen. I hope we can get cloture on the bill to
proceed to extend Federal unemployment benefits. But I also hope all of
my colleagues will see the error of this part of the amendment and move
to strike it. Fundamentally, it is the only right thing to do. So I
hope we will do that. I hope we will begin to take a look more and more
at disability insurance in terms of what it means, how it operates. The
notion that, somehow, if a person gets disability insurance they cannot
work--that is not true. A person can work. If a person is able to work,
they can earn up to $1,070 a month without losing their disability
payments.

So I hope as we go forward, we will begin to shed more light and have
a more enlightened discussion on this program and how it operates and
why it is so essential to ensure that people with disabilities are not
discriminated against in a manner that no other part of our society
would be, if this provision were left in the bill.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities,
Washington, DC, January 11, 2014.

U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senators: The undersigned members of the Consortium
for Citizens with Disabilities are writing to express our
opposition to proposals to eliminate or reduce Social
Security Disability Insurance (DI) benefits for individuals
who concurrently receive Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits
as a partial offset for extending the Emergency Unemployment
Compensation (EUC) program.

The DI and UI programs have been established for different
purposes and largely serve different populations. As
highlighted in a 2012 report by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), less than one percent of individuals served by
the DI and UI programs receive concurrent benefits.

At the same time, receiving UI and DI is not inconsistent.
This has been the long-standing position of the Social
Security Administration and of the courts. Individuals who
receive concurrent benefits do so because they have
significant disabilities that make them eligible for DI, and
because they have also attempted to work at a low level of
earnings but have lost their job through no fault of their
own. According to the GAO, the average quarterly concurrent
benefit in fiscal year 2010 was about $1,100 in DI and $2,200
in UI for a quarterly average of about $3,300 in total
benefits.

These benefits can be a lifeline to workers with
disabilities who receive them, and their families. We are
concerned about any cuts to these already modest benefits,
and about the prospect of worsening the economic security of
workers with disabilities and their families at a time when
the economy continues to struggle.

Finally, we believe that changes to our nation's Social
Security system should be carefully considered as part of
discussions about how to strengthen Social Security, and that
benefit cuts to Social Security should not be considered as
part of offsets for other important benefit programs.

In closing, while we strongly support extending the EUC
program, we oppose amendments to partially offset the costs
by eliminating or reducing concurrent DI and UI benefits.

National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), National
Association of Disability Representatives, National
Association of County Behavioral Health & Developmental
Disability, Directors National Council for Community
Behavioral Healthcare, National Council on Independent Living
(NCIL), National Disability Rights Network, National Multiple
Sclerosis Society, National Organization on Disability,
National Organization of Social Security Claimants'
Representatives, TASH, United Cerebral Palsy, United Spinal
Association, World Institute on Disability.

____
[From the LA Times, Jan. 10, 2014]
An Awful Idea: Hammer the Disabled to Pay for Unemployment Benefits
(By Michael Hiltzik)
It would take the pen of Jonathan Swift* to fully describe
Congress's willingness to beat up on the least fortunate
members of society to protect the richest. The latest example
is a plan to pay for a one-year extension of unemployment
insurance by cutting Social Security benefits for the
disabled.

This flinthearted idea has been endorsed by Senate
Democrats, of all people, who have written it into a proposal
that could reach the floor as early as Monday. Its chief
sponsor is Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., but it's got the support
of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid too.

Advocates for Social Security and for disabled workers are
in a fully justified uproar over this measure for two main
reasons: it uniquely burdens the disabled among all workers,
and it sets a terrible precedent of raiding Social Security
to pay for other social programs. As a coalition of disabled
advocacy groups put it in a letter to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-
Iowa, chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions, the measure would mean ``worsening the economic
security of workers with disabilities and their families at a
time when the economy continues to struggle.''
How crucial is this offset for the federal budget, you
fiscal hawks in Washington? It would save about $100 million
a year. That's less than three thousandths of a percent of
the annual federal budget. Sure, fiscal responsibility has to
start somewhere, but surely there are deeper pockets to mine
than those of disabled people struggling to make ends meet.

The offset, moreover, is based on the unjustified treatment
of disability pay and unemployment compensation as somehow
two sides of the same coin, so that receiving one should
disqualify you from the other.

The idea that disabled persons are ``double-dipping'' by
collecting wages or other compensation while also getting a
disability check is enshrined in conservative attacks on
disability. But it's untrue. The Social Security disability
program is designed as a bridge to full employment. Its
benefits aren't intended as a substitute for wages, but a
supplement.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities observes,
disabled beneficiaries can earn up to $1,070 a month in wages
this year without jeopardizing their benefits so they can
``test their ability to return to work'' and ease their
transition back into the labor market.

The average monthly disability benefit was about $1,130
last year and the average unemployment check $1,200, so no
one is getting
[[Page S288]]
rich here. Add together the averages, and we're still talking
about poverty level income for a family of four.

The coalition of disability groups points out that the
unemployment and disability programs were designed for
different purposes and for the most part serve different
populations. But there is an overlap estimated at about
117,000 of the 8.9 million Americans receiving disability,
according to Rebecca Vallas of the National Organization of
Social Security Claimants' Representatives, a leading
advocacy group.

These are people who have passed through the very stringent
gauntlet necessary to qualify for disability benefits, and
they've also worked long enough to become eligible for
unemployment. There's no justification in law or logic for
offsetting one benefit by the other.

Vallas and other advocates are especially nervous that this
sort of proposal encourages lawmakers to view Social Security
benefits as a ``piggy bank'' to pay for other social
programs. ``It's death by a thousand paper cuts to call this
a pay-for'' to cover the expansion of unemployment insurance,
she says.

But the idea is becoming disturbingly common in Washington.
The disability-unemployment offset also appeared in President
Obama's 2014 budget proposal, which called it a ``smart
reform . . . (to) root out duplicative or wasteful
spending.'' (The budget hasn't been passed.)
It's anything but a ``smart reform'': it's a hacking away
at the safety net for the disabled and unemployed that only a
Scrooge would contemplate. The very idea that we should bill
the disabled to pay for benefits for the jobless suggests
that our national standards of fairness and civilization have
fallen very, very low indeed. This is a proposal that should
die in its crib.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and note the
absence of a quorum.